MARITIME 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Key Issues Related to 

Commercial Activity in 

the U.S. Arctic over 

the Next Decade

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2014

GAO-14-299

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-299, a report to 

congressional requesters 

March 2014 

MARITIME INFRASTRUCTURE

Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the U.S. 

Arctic over the Next Decade 

Why GAO Did This Study

Decreasing seasonal sea ice has 

opened up Arctic waters for longer 

periods with resulting potential 

economic opportunities in commercial 

shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, 

oil, and mining. In light of the 

importance of U.S. efforts to effectively 

manage Arctic issues, GAO was asked 

to examine U.S. actions related to 

developing and investing in Arctic 

maritime infrastructure. 

This report discusses (1) current 

commercial maritime activity in the 

U.S. Arctic and anticipated activity in 

the next 10 years, (2) actions taken by 

government entities in support of 

planning and developing U.S. Arctic 

maritime infrastructure, and (3) federal 

interagency efforts to identify and 

prioritize Arctic maritime-infrastructure 

investments. GAO interviewed 

representatives from the commercialshipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, 

oil, and mining industries and 

government entities involved in the 

U.S. Arctic. Site visits were conducted 

to Nome, Barrow, and Anchorage, 

Alaska. These sites were selected 

based on factors such as geographic 

location and infrastructure activity.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. USCG, NOAA, the 

Department of Transportation, and the 

Department of the Interior sent GAO 

technical comments on this report,

which were incorporated as 

appropriate. USACE did not have any 

comments on this report. 

View a video of GAO’s review of U.S. 

Arctic maritime infrastructure. 

What GAO Found

Commercial U.S. Arctic maritime activities are expected to be limited for the next 

10 years, according to industry representatives, due to a variety of factors. 

Interviews with industry representatives highlighted a variety of general 

challenges related to operating in the Arctic, such as geography, extreme 

weather, and hard-to-predict ice floes. Industry-specific factors were also cited as 

contributing to limited commercial activity. For example, shipping companies 

noted higher costs with Arctic transit; cruise industry groups noted a lack of 

demand for Arctic cruises from the mainstream cruise-consumer base, and oil 

companies last drilled offshore exploratory wells in the U.S. Arctic in 2012.

Although the activity will likely be limited, federal, state, and local stakeholders

have taken some actions to plan for future maritime-infrastructure investments.

Some of these actions address factors that, as identified by industry 

representatives, contribute to the current and expected limited maritime activity in 

the U.S. Arctic. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), in 

collaboration with the State of Alaska, has taken steps to study the development 

of an Arctic deepwater port; the lack of which is a factor identified by mining 

representatives as contributing to the expected limited mining activity in the U.S. 

Arctic. The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is in the preliminary phase of seeking to 

acquire a new polar icebreaker, which could be used for emergency response, 

research assistance, or patrols. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA) and the Alaska government are working to improve 

mapping, charting, and weather information for the U.S. Arctic. 

The Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS) published the U.S. 

Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action in July 

2013, which prioritized actions for developing Arctic maritime infrastructure and 

identified the lead agency for each action. This report prioritized two broad 

categories to be addressed in the near term: information infrastructure, such as 

mapping and charting, and response services, such as search and rescue. 

Implementation of the report’s actions is at the discretion of each federal agency; 

however, according to CMTS officials, CMTS is currently developing a process to 

regularly monitor agencies’ progress in addressing the recommended actions. 

Adventure Cruise Ship and Barge at the Port of Nome, Alaska

View GAO-14-299. For more information, 

contact Lorelei St. James at (202) 512-2834 or 

stjamesl@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Letter 1 

Background 4

Key Selected Industries Projected Limited Commercial Maritime 

Activity in the U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade 14

Government Entities Have Taken Some Actions to Support U.S. 

Arctic Maritime Infrastructure, Though Development Presents 

Unique Challenges 22

The CMTS Prioritized U.S. Arctic MTS Infrastructure and Plans to 

Monitor Agencies’ Progress 29

Concluding Observations 33

Agency Comments 34

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36

Appendix II Diminishing Arctic Seasonal Sea Ice 41

Appendix III Arctic Maritime Infrastructure Roles of Federal and Other 

Stakeholders 43

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 46

Tables

Table 1: Key Federal Agencies and the U.S. Arctic Maritime 

Infrastructure for which They Are Responsible 10

Table 2: Summary of Commercial Use of the U.S. Arctic Based on 

Interviews with Selected Industries 15

Table 3: Status of Existing U.S. Arctic Maritime Infrastructure, 

2013 23

Table 4: Organizations Selected for Interviews 37

Figures

Figure 1: Alaska and Adjacent Bodies of Water 5

Figure 2: Number of Bering Strait Vessel Transits, 2008–2013 6

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 3: Air and Sea Travel Distances in Alaska 8

Figure 4: Still from Video Showing Population Density, Highways, 

Railroads, and Ports in Alaska 9

Figure 5: Hospital in Nome Built Above the Ground to Avoid 

Melting the Permafrost; Shore in Barrow Being Protected 

From Coastal Erosion 28

Figure 6: September 2012 and September 2013 Ice Extent 

Compared with the 1981 to 2010 Median September Ice 

Extent 42

Abbreviations

AIDEA Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

AIS Automatic Identification System

AMSA Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment Report

Arctic IAT Arctic MTS Integrated Action Team

ARPA Arctic Research and Policy Act of 1984 

BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management 

BSEE Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement

CMTS Committee on the Marine Transportation System 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOI Department of the Interior 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

MARAD Maritime Administration 

MTS marine transportation system 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

USCG U.S. Coast Guard 

USCGC U.S. Coast Guard Cutter 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 19, 2014

The Honorable Timothy Bishop

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Water Resources and the Environment

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Garamendi

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Lisa Murkowski

United States Senate

The Honorable Rick Larsen

House of Representatives

The recent retreat of sea ice in the Arctic, combined with an expected 

increase in human activity, has heightened the United States’ and other 

nations’ interests in the Arctic region. The United States, with the State of 

Alaska extending above the Arctic Circle, is one of eight Arctic nations.1

Given the potential increase in commercial activity in the Arctic, there has 

been greater international focus on developing and investing in maritime 

Record low levels of sea ice over the past decade could have potential 

impacts on access to natural resources, the people who inhabit the 

region, and the U.S. economy. For example, diminishing sea ice has 

made some Arctic waters navigable for longer periods of time and, as a 

result, may contribute to new economic opportunities in commercial 

shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining. Growth in these 

types of commercial activities in the Arctic, however, could also increase 

the risk of negative maritime impacts, such as ship collisions or oil spills, 

and potentially increase demand for services such as search and rescue 

and other maritime navigation support.

 

1 The Arctic Circle latitude is 66° 33’ 44” N.
 

Page 2 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

infrastructure, such as deepwater ports and improved mapping and 

charting of Arctic waters. Maritime infrastructure could help facilitate 

transportation and commerce and be used to support activities such as 

search and rescue and emergency response. Within the United States, 

there are a variety of stakeholders that play a role in planning and 

developing maritime infrastructure in the Arctic, including the federal 

government, the state of Alaska, private investors, and others.

In light of changing conditions in the Arctic and the importance of U.S. 

efforts to effectively manage Arctic issues, you asked us to examine 

actions related to developing and investing in U.S. Arctic maritime 

infrastructure. This report examines:

• What is known about the extent of current commercial maritime 

activity in the U.S. Arctic, and according to stakeholders, what is the 

anticipated activity in the next 10 years?

• What actions have government entities taken in support of planning 

and developing U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure, and what unique 

challenges exist, if any?

• What federal interagency efforts have been taken to identify and 

prioritize Arctic maritime infrastructure investments?

In the absence of a singular definition of the Arctic, federal agencies’ 

definitions vary. In this report, we use the term Arctic to mean areas 

above the Arctic Circle and the term U.S. Arctic to discuss those areas 

that are U.S. waters and land as defined by the Arctic Research and 

Policy Act of 1984 (ARPA).2

 

2 Pub. L. No. 98-373. 98 Stat. 1248 (codified at 15 U.S.C. § 4111). ARPA defines the 

Arctic as all United States and foreign territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United 

States territory north and west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Yukon, and 

Kuskokwim Rivers; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the Beaufort, 

Bering, and Chukchi Seas and the Aleutian chain.

We focused on the development of maritime 

infrastructure on the waters and land along the western and northern 

coasts of Alaska, particularly the more remote areas north of the Bering 

Strait. Maritime infrastructure includes (1) the marine transportation 

system (ports, navigable waterways, and port connectors such as roads 

and railways); (2) aids to maritime navigation (buoys and beacons); (3) 

mapping and charting; (4) weather and sea ice forecasts; and (5) polar 

icebreakers. We focused on the commercial-shipping, cruises, 

commercial-fishing, oil, and mining industries as potential commercial 

operators in this region. Our scope does not include Arctic issues 
 

Page 3 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

pertaining to domain awareness, defense, or international affairs; we 

recently issued reports or are conducting ongoing work in these areas.3

To gather information for all three objectives, we reviewed program 

documentation and related reports and interviewed officials from the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the 

Department of Transportation (DOT), the Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System (CMTS), the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement (BSEE), and federal interagency coordinating 

bodies. We conducted site visits in 2013 to Nome, Barrow, and 

Anchorage, Alaska. We chose these site visits based on a variety of 

criteria, including geographic location in the state, number of interviews to 

be conducted, infrastructure activity, cultural considerations, and 

recommendations from stakeholders. During these site visits, we 

collected relevant documentation and interviewed a range of U.S. Arctic 

stakeholders such as officials from state and local government agencies, 

and representatives from Alaska Native organizations, Alaska Native 

corporations,4

 

3 Maritime domain awareness is the effective understanding of anything associated with 

the global maritime domain that could affect the United States’ security, safety, economy, 

or environment. GAO, Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, 

but More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, 

academic and research institutions, and companies. We 

also reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed representatives 

from other U.S. Arctic stakeholders such as engineering entities, 

environmental groups, and industry associations and companies. The 

results of these interviews are not generalizable, but do provide insights 

regarding current and planned-maritime activities in the U.S. Arctic. We 

reviewed prior GAO reports on several topics, including our body of work 

on Arctic issues and interagency collaboration.

GAO-10-870 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2010); GAO, Arctic Capabilities: DOD 

Addressed Many Specified Reporting Elements in Its 2011 Arctic Report but Should Take 

Steps to Meet Near- and Long-term Needs, GAO-12-180 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 

2012); GAO is currently reviewing U.S. participation in the Arctic Council, expected to be 

published in spring 2014.

4 Village and regional Alaska Native corporations were established pursuant to the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act primarily as vehicles for distributing land and monetary 

benefits to Alaska Natives to provide a fair and just settlement of aboriginal land claims in 

Alaska. Pub. L. No. 92-203, 85 Stat. 688 (1971).
 

Page 4 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

To describe what is known about commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic, 

we interviewed companies and industry trade associations from the 

commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining 

industries. To describe actions federal, state, and local government 

entities have taken in support of the U.S. Arctic marine transportation 

system, we interviewed and collected documentation from 7 federal, 10 

state, and 6 local government entities to identify infrastructure within the 

scope of responsibility for each entity. We also identified specific efforts 

each entity has taken related to mapping, ports, port connectors, weather 

and sea-ice data, polar icebreakers, and aids to navigation. To describe 

federal interagency efforts taken to identify and prioritize Arctic maritime 

infrastructure investments, we reviewed a key federal government report 

and prior GAO reports on several topics including our body of work on 

Arctic issues and interagency collaboration. See appendix I for additional 

information on our scope and methodology.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Alaska’s location makes the United States an Arctic nation. Alaska has 

extensive maritime access, with over 6,000 miles of coastline, bordered 

by the Beaufort, Chukchi, and Bering Seas; the Arctic Ocean; the Gulf of 

Alaska; and the Bering Strait, whose jurisdiction is divided between the 

United States and Russia. See figure 1. The Bering Strait provides the 

only access to the Arctic Ocean from the Pacific Ocean, which lies south 

of the Aleutian Islands. Federal waters typically extend from 3 to 200 

nautical miles offshore, and state waters for coastal states such as Alaska

generally extend from the state coastline up to 3 nautical miles offshore. 

Within the complex array of federal and state maritime boundaries, all 

navigable waters of the United States are subject to some type of federal 

jurisdiction.

Background

Alaska and the Arctic
 

Page 5 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 1: Alaska and Adjacent Bodies of Water

There is evidence that the Arctic sea ice cover has diminished, which has 

increased interest in shipping into and through the U.S. Arctic during the 

summer months. As seasonal sea ice diminishes, the time and extent to 

which vessel traffic can use Arctic waters increases.5

 

5 For additional information on sea ice, see appendix II.

There are two types 

of shipping that occur in the U.S. Arctic: “destinational” and “trans-Arctic.” 

Currently, most shipping in the U.S. Arctic is destinational. Destinational 

shipping refers to shipping into or out of the Arctic, mainly in support of 

commercial activity. It includes, for example, shipping that supports 

seasonal oil-drilling operations in U.S. Arctic waters and tugs and barges 

that provide diesel oil and other commodities to remote Alaskan villages. 

Destinational shipping to the U.S. Arctic coast through the Bering Strait 

usually begins in July and ends by mid-October.
 

Page 6 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Trans-Arctic shipping refers to use of the Arctic as a route between two 

destinations outside of the Arctic. There are two primary trans-Arctic sea 

routes. The Northwest Passage follows the northern coasts of Alaska and 

Canada, connecting the east coasts of Canada and Asia. The Northern 

Sea Route follows the northern border of Russia, connecting Asia and 

Europe. Increased trans-Arctic use of the Northern Sea Route could 

affect the U.S. Arctic because the eastern entry/exit point passes through 

the Bering Strait. According to USCG data, vessel transits through the 

Bering Strait, for both northbound and southbound destinational and 

trans-Arctic traffic, ranged from 217 to 484 transits annually from 2008 to 

2013. See figure 2.

Figure 2: Number of Bering Strait Vessel Transits, 2008–2013

Alaska is the largest U.S. state, but with a small population, the lowest 

population density in the country, and large travel distances. See figure 3. 

In addition, Alaska’s geography is diverse with mountainous terrains, and 

areas of the state that are completely iced-in most of the year. 

Consequently, Alaska’s transportation systems are unique compared to 

those of the contiguous states. Highway and rail infrastructure is primarily 

located in the south central region of the state, and many cities do not 

have highway connections to the rest of the state. There is one rail line 

running 500 miles from the south central region of the state to the interior 
 

Page 7 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

(from Seward and Whittier to Fairbanks, Alaska).6 Many Alaskan cities 

and villages are accessible only by air or water. Consequently, there are 

a number of general aviation airports7

 

6 There is also a narrow gauge rail line that provides tourist trips from Skagway, Alaska, to 

the Canadian Border.

and small ports and harbors, and 

the dominant modes of transportation are air service and barge service 

along coastal and inland waterways. See figure 4.

7 The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 defines a general aviation airport as a 

public airport that is located in a state and that, as determined by the Secretary of 

Transportation, does not have scheduled service or has scheduled service with fewer than 

2,500 passenger boardings each year (Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126 Stat. 11, 21). 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 3: Air and Sea Travel Distances in Alaska
 

Page 9 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 4: Still from Video Showing Population Density, Highways, Railroads, and 

Ports in Alaska

Note: To view the full video, please click on the hyperlink. 

There are a wide variety of federal, state, local, and other stakeholders 

that play a role in planning, developing, and managing U.S. Arctic 

maritime infrastructure. Table 1 shows some key federal agencies with 

Arctic maritime-infrastructure responsibilities.

Multiple Federal and Other 

Stakeholders Have Arctic 

Maritime Infrastructure 

Responsibilities
 

Page 10 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Table 1: Key Federal Agencies and the U.S. Arctic Maritime Infrastructure for which 

They Are Responsible 

Federal agencya Infrastructure components Description

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers 

Portsb Ports serve as gateways for the movement 

of goods between navigable waterways and 

landside transportation systems.

U.S. Coast Guardc Aids to navigationd Aids to navigation are placed to enable a 

vessel to determine its position, determine 

a safe course to steer or avoid unseen 

dangers.

Polar icebreakers Specially designed cutters for open-water 

icebreaking that are capable of operating in 

the Arctic and Antarctic region. Icebreakers 

are used for activities such as search and 

rescue, environmental response, and 

scientific research, among others.

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

Mapping and 

charting

Information to produce nautical charts 

depicting shoreline, depths, hazards, and 

recommended routes for navigation safety. 

Weather and water 

forecasts

Monitoring and information for mariners and 

coastal communities on forecasts and 

warnings of weather conditions for safe 

operations.

Sea ice analysis and 

forecasts

Analysis and forecasts of sea ice location, 

concentration, and thickness out to 5 days, 

as well as seasonal and decadal prediction 

of ice extent.

Department of 

Transportation 

Port connectors Roads, railways, and pipelines that connect 

to maritime transportation to allow freight to 

transfer from one transportation mode to 

another (e.g., from a barge to a truck).

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

a

In addition to these federal agencies, the Department of the Interior (DOI) also plays a role, but does 

not specifically develop or invest in maritime infrastructure. DOI’s Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management (BOEM) manages mineral and energy resources on the outer continental shelf and 

periodically conducts lease sales for these resources off the coast of Alaska. The Bureau of Safety 

and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) develops and enforces regulations that ensure the safety of 

oil and gas exploration, and environmental protection including oil-spill response planning and 

preparedness, and spill abatement. The outer continental shelf refers to the submerged lands outside 

the territorial jurisdiction of the state, but within U.S. jurisdiction and control. 

b

The USACE is the lead federal agency for maintaining and improving navigable waterways including 

the harbors in ports. While local taxes, private investment, and port authorities typically finance port 

infrastructure, the USACE provides port feasibility, planning, design, and construction support. 

c

The U.S. Coast Guard is a component of the Department of Homeland Security. U.S. Coast Guard 

also operates other ice-capable ships, such as buoy tenders, but aids to navigation and polar 

icebreakers are the only assets evaluated by this report. 

d

There are various types of aids including fixed and floating aids (e.g., beacons, day markers, fog 

signals, buoys) for short-range navigation. However, for the purposes of this report we limited the 

scope of our review of aids to navigation to buoys and beacons. 
 

Page 11 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

There are also a variety of non-federal stakeholders with responsibilities 

in planning, developing, and managing Arctic maritime infrastructure 

including international entities, the state of Alaska, local governments, 

Alaska Native organizations, and non-profits that work with federal 

agencies to plan and develop maritime infrastructure. For additional 

information on Arctic stakeholders and maritime infrastructure 

components, see appendix III. 

Federal agencies’ involvement in planning and developing Arctic maritime 

infrastructure is guided by several national policies.8 The Administration 

issued the Arctic Region Policy in 2009, which addresses issues related 

to national security, international governance, international scientific 

cooperation, economic issues, environmental protection, and maritime 

transportation in the Arctic region.9 It specified that priorities for maritime 

transportation include safe navigation, protection of maritime commerce, 

and protection of the environment. It recognized the need for 

infrastructure to support shipping activity, and search and rescue 

capabilities, among others. The White House National Ocean Council 

issued the National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan in April 2013.10

While this plan is broader than the Arctic region, it specifically identifies 

the need for improvements to communications, environmental response 

to marine pollution and oil spills, the ability to observe and forecast seaice, and the accuracy of charts and maps of the region. In May 2013, the 

White House issued a National Strategy for the Arctic Region.11

 

8 In addition, some federal agencies have also issued strategic plans for the Arctic. For 

example, NOAA issued its Arctic Vision and Strategy in 2011, the USCG and Department 

of Defense both published their Arctic Strategies in 2013, and the U.S. Navy published its 

Arctic Roadmap for 2014-2030 in 2014. 

This 

document was created to articulate the strategic priorities for the Arctic 

9 White House, Arctic Region Policy, National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD-66 

and Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-25 (Jan. 9, 2009).

10 National Ocean Council, National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan (Washington, 

D.C.: April 2013). A National Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the 

Great Lakes and the National Ocean Council was established by Executive Order 13547 

on July 19, 2010. The council consists of 27 federal agencies, departments, and offices. 

The National Ocean Policy Implementation Plan was created to translate the National 

Policy for the Stewardship of the Ocean, Our Coasts, and the Great Lakes into on-theground actions. 

11 White House, National Strategy for the Arctic Region (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 

2013).
 

Page 12 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

region and to position the United States to meet the challenges and 

opportunities that lie ahead, such as evolving the Arctic infrastructure and 

charting and mapping the Arctic region’s oceans and waterways. It 

prioritizes and integrates the work of federal agencies with activities that 

are already under way in the state of Alaska and at the international level. 

An implementation plan for this document was released in January 2014 

that sets forth the methodology, process, and approach for executing the 

strategy, including a framework to guide federal activities in the 

construction, maintenance, and improvement of ports and other Arctic 

infrastructure.12

A Presidential Directive in the U.S. Ocean Action Plan, issued in 2004, 

created the Committee on the Marine Transportation System (CMTS), 

chaired by DOT.13 The CMTS is supported by a sub-cabinet policy 

advisory body, the Coordinating Board, a dedicated staff body, the 

Executive Secretariat, and Integrated Action Teams. The Arctic Integrated 

Action Team (Arctic IAT) is led by the Coast Guard, Maritime 

Administration (MARAD), and NOAA. In 2012, the Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation Act of 2012 established the CMTS in statute and 

requires CMTS to serve as a federal interagency coordinating committee 

to (1) assess the adequacy of the marine transportation system (MTS), 

(2) promote the integration of the MTS with other modes of transportation 

and other uses of the marine environment, and (3) coordinate and make 

recommendations with regard to federal policies that affect the MTS.14

 

12 White House, Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2014).

13 The U.S. Ocean Action Plan elevated the then existing Interagency Committee on the

Marine Transportation System to the Cabinet-level CMTS. Members of the CMTS include 

the Secretary of Transportation; Secretary of Commerce; Secretary of Defense; Secretary 

of Homeland Security; Secretary of the Treasury; Secretary of State; Secretary of the 

Interior; Secretary of Agriculture; Attorney General; Secretary of Labor; Secretary of 

Energy; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency; and the Chairman of the Federal Maritime Commission. In addition,

there are five Ex-Officio members of the Committee: Director, Office of Management and 

Budget; Chairman, Council on Environmental Quality; Assistant to the President for 

Homeland Security; Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy; and Assistant to the 

President for Economic Policy.

14 Pub. L. No. 112-213, 126 Stat. 1540, 1567-68.

Committee on the Marine 

Transportation System 

and Arctic Maritime 

Infrastructure
 

Page 13 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

In 2010, Congress directed the CMTS to coordinate the establishment of 

domestic transportation polices in the Arctic to ensure safe and secure 

maritime shipping and the implementation of the Arctic Council’s Arctic 

Marine Shipping Assessment Report.15 In response in 2013, CMTS 

published the U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and 

Priorities for Action (Arctic Report), developed by the Arctic IAT and 

subject to extensive interagency review, which reviewed maritime traffic in 

the U.S. Arctic, current conditions of U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure, 

and current Arctic MTS policies, among other things.16

 

15 The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. No. 111-281, 124 Stat. 2905, 

2928.) mandated that CMTS coordinate the establishment of domestic transportation 

policies in the Arctic related to ensuring safe and secure maritime shipping in the Arctic. In 

2009, the Arctic Council (comprised of eight circumpolar states—Canada, Denmark, 

Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United States) approved the Arctic 

Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA) Report. AMSA highlighted the lack of marine 

infrastructure available to the region and made a number of recommendations to enhance 

Arctic marine transportation safety, protect Arctic people and the environment, and build 

Arctic marine infrastructure.

16 U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Arctic Marine 

Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action (Washington, D.C.: 2013).
 

Page 14 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Diminishing sea ice has contributed to promising prospects for oil and gas 

in the U.S. Arctic17 and created growth potential for commercial shipping 

on trans-Arctic routes that are geographically shorter than current 

shipping routes through the Panama or Suez Canals. However, industry 

representatives we spoke with from five key industries— commercial 

shipping, cruises, commercial fishing, oil, and mining—stated that their 

level of commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic is expected to remain limited 

over the next 10 years due to a variety of contributing factors. Factors 

included general challenges related to operating in the Arctic such as 

geography, extreme weather, and hard-to-predict sea ice movement,18

and other industry-specific factors. Table 2 provides some examples of 

contributing factors cited by industry representatives.

 

17 According to DOI officials, factors such as the sustained high price of oil and the 

identified resource potential of large oil fields were greater factors than the diminishing sea 

ice. Oil companies are not leasing any new areas offshore that are in any deeper waters 

or farther north than they did in the 1980s. According to a recent report by the Interagency 

Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy and Permitting in Alaska, over 23 

billion barrels of technically recoverable oil and 108 trillion cubic feet of technically 

recoverable gas are estimated to lie in the outer continental shelf (OCS) of the Beaufort 

and Chukchi Seas. Interagency Working Group on Coordination of Domestic Energy 

Development and Permitting in Alaska, Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing 

Arctic: A Report to the President (Washington, D.C.: March 2013).

18 We have recently reported that despite the diminished sea ice, Arctic navigation 

challenges still remain. GAO, Arctic Capabilities: DOD Addressed Many Specified 

Reporting Elements in Its 2011 Arctic Report but Should Take Steps to Meet Near- and 

Long-term Needs, GAO-12-180 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2012). Large amounts of 

winter ice still exist in Arctic waters, and there is increased movement of ice around the 

waters from spring to fall. Increased movement of sea ice heightens the risk that ships 

may become trapped or damaged by ice impacts. 

Key Selected 

Industries Projected 

Limited Commercial 

Maritime Activity in 

the U.S. Arctic over 

the Next Decade
 

Page 15 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Table 2: Summary of Commercial Use of the U.S. Arctic Based on Interviews with 

Selected Industries

Industry

Current and expected levels of 

activity in the next 10 years

Cited factors contributing to 

limited activity

Commercial 

shipping

For trans-Arctic shipping, use of the 

Northern Sea Route has so far been 

limited, but some shippers are open 

to its possible future use. Few of the 

shipping companies we spoke with 

have used the Northwest Passage 

or have plans to use it in the next 10 

years. 

• Higher per-unit shipping 

costs for Arctic transit.

• Additional vessel and 

crew requirements 

needed for Arctic transit.

• Increased risk and 

uncertainty due to 

extreme and 

unpredictable weather.

Cruises Cruise tourism in the U.S. Arctic is 

limited and is expected to remain a 

small niche adventure cruise 

market. 

• Lack of demand from the 

mainstream cruise 

consumer base for U.S. 

Arctic cruises.

Commercial 

fishing

Commercial fishing is primarily 

focused in and around the Bering 

Sea, which is part of the U.S. Arctic.

• Commercial fishing is 

prohibited in U.S. waters 

north of the Bering Strait. 

It is unknown when, if 

ever, federal or state 

waters will open to 

commercial fishing in that 

area.

Oil Recently, oil companies have made 

some investments to develop 

offshore oil resources in the U.S. 

Arctic. These development efforts, 

however, are generally on hold and 

increases in oil exploration activity 

are expected to be limited. The 

impact of oil exploration activity on 

the levels of maritime traffic appears 

uncertain.

• Timeline to oil production 

in the Arctic is unknown.

• Future transport of oil will 

likely be through a subsea pipeline rather than a

tanker ship.

• Uncertainty regarding oil 

prices and variable 

industry trends. 

Mining Currently only one major mine 

operates in the U.S. Arctic. Two 

new mines are being planned or 

considered. However, according to 

industry representatives, the new 

mines would likely not contribute to 

additional maritime vessel traffic.

• Lack of intermodal 

connectors such as road 

and rail.

• Lack of a deepwater port 

in the region.

Source: GAO analysis of agency information. 

For decades destinational shippers have provided transport services such 

as fuel and supplies for coastal villages north of the Bering Strait, hauled 

construction materials and equipment to support local development, and 

exported zinc-lead ore from the Red Dog Mine during the summer 

Commercial Shipping
 

Page 16 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

months. To date, the diminished sea ice has not greatly increased the 

volume of destinational shipping activity, with the exception of an increase 

in vessels and barge traffic in 2012 to support an oil company’s 

exploration during that summer’s drilling season.

Trans-Arctic shipping using the Northern Sea Route or Northwest 

Passage has so far been limited,19 but some shippers are open to 

potentially using the Northern Sea Route in the future. According to 

Russia’s Northern Sea Route Administration records, 635 permits had 

been issued for vessels to operate along the Northern Sea Route in 

2013.20 However, according to reports from the Northern Sea Route 

Information Office, 71 ships had transited the entire route in 2013. Of the 

shipping companies we contacted, one company indicated it had used the 

Northwest Passage to transit the Arctic.21

• Container shipping companies are not interested in either the 

Northern Sea Route or the Northwest Passage as a shipping route.

Representatives from the 

companies we spoke with said there is greater interest in use of the 

Northern Sea Route because it has relatively less sea ice than along the 

Northwest Passage, and the geography and shallow depths of the 

Northwest Passage make it less viable for trans-Arctic shipping. 

According to shippers and industry associations we spoke with:

22

• Bulk shipping companies have completed several transits using the 

Northern Sea Route and potentially will do more. However, only one 

bulk shipper has completed a transit through the Northwest Passage, 

doing so in 2013.

• According to a tanker industry group, only one of its members has 

transited the Northern Sea Route using an ice-classed vessel; 

 

19 Although there has been an increase in vessel transits through the Bering Strait, for 

both northbound and southbound destinational and trans-Arctic traffic, the number of 

transits was 434 in 2013. By comparison, the Panama Canal had 13,660 transits in fiscal 

year 2013.

20 The Government of the Russian Federation established the Northern Sea Route 

Administration to organize navigation in the water area of the Northern Sea Route.

21 Data on transits through the Northwest Passage is not known to be collected by any 

U.S. Government entity.

22 One shipping company representative told us that in 2013, media sources had credited 

a Chinese container shipping company with the first container ship transit of the Northern 

Sea Route that year, but the ship was actually a smaller multi-purpose ship, not a 

container ship vessel that would be used for container cargo transportation.
 

Page 17 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

however, other companies are interested in the route’s potential. 

Tanker companies have not used the Northwest Passage for transArctic shipping.

Shipping industry representatives we spoke with highlighted a number of 

contributing factors that can affect plans for trans-Arctic shipping, 

including higher costs, specialized vessel requirements, and the lack of 

reliability in terms of weather and ice—particularly the sea ice presence in 

the Northwest Passage.23 First, using Arctic routes would incur additional 

costs that may not outweigh the benefits. For example, the shipping 

industry uses a network of ports, but there is not a U.S. port in the 

network north of the Bering Strait. A representative from a major 

container shipping company stated that even if a port were built, since the 

passages are not open year-round, it would require companies to modify 

their schedules for those months the Arctic is open, which could be 

expensive and disruptive.24 Second, transiting Arctic routes would require 

ice-strengthened vessels, which have less shipping capacity due to 

increased weight.25

 

23 Although old, thick Arctic sea ice is diminishing, the seasonal sea ice along the U.S. 

Arctic coastline continues to be present. Additionally, the general Arctic Ocean circulation 

pushes older ice toward Alaska and Canada, which could particularly affect safe 

navigation of the Northwest Passage in the summer. 

In particular, the shallower waters along the 

Northwest Passage can only accommodate a smaller vessel, which may 

not present the necessary economies of scale to warrant shipping 

companies modifying their schedules to use an Arctic route. Finally, 

shipping representatives told us that the consistent presence of sea ice, 

bad visibility, high winds, and uncharted waters all raise the risk of 

transiting the Arctic. A container ship company representative stated that 

the container-shipping industry is reliant on strict schedules, and the 

unpredictability of sea ice and weather makes the trans-Arctic passages 

less reliable. A tanker-shipping industry representative added that ship 

24 Schedule integrity is important in the container-shipping industry because of shipments 

of components (just-in-time inventory). A delay of the receipt of inventory could hold up 

production in factories, which would affect the shipping company’s business. According to 

a representative from a major container shipping company, because ships can only be 

used in the Arctic for up to 4 months a year, the costs of operating in the Arctic for only 

part of the year is currently unfeasible.

25 One shipping company stated that it ruled out the potential for operating in Arctic waters 

at an early stage during the design of its new vessels, which are expected to be in the 

fleet for the next 30 years. Companies we spoke with that are interested in using Arctic 

routes already own ice-strengthened vessels, which they use year-round outside of the 

Arctic in places that have Arctic-like conditions. 
 

Page 18 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

captains are not willing to take vessels loaded with oil through uncharted 

waters, such as those in much of the Arctic. Similarly, a recent study

published by MARAD stated that the availability of an Arctic route seems 

unlikely over the next 10 to 20 years due to uncertainties surrounding the 

rate at which sea ice will diminish; the lack of U.S. trade lanes that would 

provide sufficiently shorter sailing distances to make an Arctic route 

relevant; and the investments needed for escort vessels, staging ports, 

and channel preparations.26

A handful of cruises each year sail in the U.S. Arctic, and the number is 

expected to remain relatively stable through the next 10 years. Cruise 

ships that sail above the Bering Strait in the U.S. Arctic are a niche 

segment of the adventure cruise market. According to representatives 

from an Alaska cruise association, only one of its members currently uses 

the Northwest Passage once or twice per year with small cruise ships that 

carry fewer than 200 passengers. By comparison, mainstream cruise 

vessels, which operate in southeast Alaska, can carry more than 1,000 

passengers each.

Cruise industry representatives we spoke with expect cruise tourism in 

the Northwest Passage to remain limited to adventure cruises for the next 

10 to 15 years. The representatives did not believe that mainstream 

cruise companies would offer U.S. Arctic tours in the foreseeable future or

that additional charting or mapping, icebreakers, or search and rescue 

capabilities in the Arctic would increase cruise traffic in the Northwest 

Passage. According to representatives from a cruise association, the 

primary reason for the limited number of Arctic cruises is a lack of 

demand from the mainstream cruise consumer base. They noted that 

approximately 10 days are required to sail the long distances in the U.S. 

Arctic, often with no variation in scenery and no points of interest for 

which to disembark. 

Commercial fishing is currently prohibited in U.S. waters north of the 

Bering Strait under a federal Arctic Fishery Management Plan for the 

 

26 U.S. Department of Transportation and Maritime Administration, Panama Canal 

Expansion Study: Phase I Report Developments in Trade and National and Global 

Economics (Washington, D.C.: November 2013).

Cruises

Commercial Fishing
 

Page 19 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

region implemented in a National Marine Fisheries Service final rule.27

The 2009 final rule implementing the North Pacific Fishery Management 

Council’s Arctic Fishery Management Plan places a ban on all 

commercial fishing in specified U.S. waters north of the Bering Strait in 

the U.S. exclusive economic zone,28 which includes the Beaufort and 

Chukchi Seas, “until sufficient information is available to enable a 

sustainable commercial fishery to proceed.” Two commercial-fishing 

industry representatives we spoke with said that it is not certain when, if 

ever, federal or state waters will open to commercial fishing. There is little 

industry interest in establishing commercial fisheries north of the Bering 

Strait until researchers are able to determine the impact of commercial 

fishing. So far, the industry representatives have not seen a big move of 

fish stock north due to diminished sea ice, which, in their view, would be a 

reason to open those waters. According to industry representatives, no 

increases in commercial fishing are expected in the next 10 years.

Recently, oil companies have invested in initial exploration for offshore oil 

resources in the U.S. Arctic.29 Three major oil companies that hold 

offshore leases in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas are in the exploration 

phase of their sites and may still be decades away from production, 

according to industry representatives.30

 

27 74 Fed. Reg. 56734 (Nov. 3, 2009).

One company began drilling two 

exploratory wells in 2012, with 25 vessels supporting these drilling 

operations, which increased the destinational maritime traffic that 

28 The United States has jurisdiction over the U.S. exclusive economic zone—an area 

typically extending from 3 to 200 nautical miles off the coast—including jurisdiction to 

manage natural resources and protect and preserve the marine environment.

29 In Alaska’s Arctic, oil production has occurred at the onshore Prudhoe Bay oil field, on 

the North Slope, since 1977. As of 2012, Prudhoe Bay has produced approximately 12-

billion barrels of oil. By comparison, over 23-billion barrels of oil are estimated by DOI to 

be recoverable in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

30 Seven oil companies purchased over 400 offshore oil leases in the DOI’s 2008 auctions 

for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas; however, three companies are currently key 

leaseholders.

Oil
 

Page 20 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

season.31 However several well-publicized incidents halted operations.32

None of the three companies chose to conduct exploratory offshore 

drilling for the 2013 drilling season, but instead conducted site-surveying 

activities such as “bathymetric” mapping.33

In the next 10 years, oil exploration activity is expected to be limited and 

the impact on the levels of maritime traffic appears uncertain.34

Representatives from two companies said that they had not decided 

when they will resume exploration and that they are awaiting DOI’s 

proposed rule for Alaska Outer Continental Shelf drilling before 

determining their plans for the 2014 drilling season.35 A third company 

recently decided to stop its exploration program for Alaska in 2014 citing 

unresolved legal issues stemming from a January 2014 decision of the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, affecting proposed DOI oil and 

gas leases in the Chukchi Sea off the northwest coast of Alaska, that, 

among other things, remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Alaska for further proceedings.36

 

31 Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-380, 104 Stat. 484) and 

implementing regulations, oil companies are required to prepare and submit oil-spill 

response plans under which they are to provide oil-spill response capabilities in 

conjunction with their activities. In the Arctic, established organizations exist to support 

offshore spill response with assets including vessels and trained personnel. Additionally, 

companies may have their own assets for spill response, well containment, and control.

Several factors create 

uncertainty about how future oil exploration activities may affect maritime 

traffic. First, it is unknown when and whether U.S. Arctic offshore oil 

production will begin. One industry representative we spoke with 

32 For example, an inspection on a drill rig identified significant violations and another drill 

rig that had been operating in the Beaufort Sea came loose from a towing vessel and ran 

aground near Kodiak Island.

33 “Bathymetry” is the study of water body “floors,” including oceans, lakes, and streams. 

34 Leaseholders must submit an exploration plan to BOEM and obtain approval, before 

conducting any exploration activities on a lease. 30 C.F.R. § 550.201 (a).

35 According to DOI officials, the proposed regulations are due to be released for 

comment in 2014.

36 Native Village of Point Hope, et. al. v. Jewell, et. al., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 1222 (9th

Cir. Jan. 22, 2014).
 

Page 21 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

estimated 10 years or more until oil production can begin.37 The 

production stage could increase seasonal, destinational traffic due to the 

increase in support vessels. Second, even if companies eventually begin 

producing oil in the U.S. Arctic, an industry association and company 

representatives stated that the oil would likely be transported through a 

sub-sea pipeline to land where it would then connect to the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System, rather than being transported by tanker.38 According to 

an oil-industry association representative, transporting the oil by tanker is 

not the preferred option because it presents a greater risk for spills 

because of floating ice, shallow waters, and potential collisions with other 

vessels. Finally, uncertainty regarding oil prices and variable industry 

trends also can affect the oil industry activity in the U.S. Arctic. For oil 

companies, the U.S. Arctic presents one potential oil production 

opportunity that must be weighed against other potential sites. According 

to an oil industry association representative, oil companies focus on those 

areas and production sites that provide the best business opportunities. 

Currently the costs of developing the offshore oil fields in the Arctic are 

not as competitive as other investment opportunities emerging in shale oil 

fields across the United States.

The Red Dog Mine, which opened in 1989 and is located near Kotzebue, 

is currently the only mine operating in the U.S. Arctic. The Red Dog Mine 

is serviced by a port facility and a road known as the DeLong Mountain 

Transportation System. The port is accessible for shipping a few months 

each year, so the mine stores its zinc ore at the DeLong facility and 

typically ships it to customers through the Bering Strait from July to 

October each year.

Currently there is one new mine being planned in the U.S. Arctic, and one 

under consideration. Plans exist to develop a copper mine in the Ambler 

 

37 According to the oil industry representative, it could take 2 to 3 years for exploration and 

then 2 to 3 years for the permitting process for production. The industry also anticipates a 

round of litigation over regulatory issues such as environmental impacts. After the permits 

for production, it would take 2 to 3 years to construct the infrastructure, and then 

production can begin. In total, offshore oil production could be about a decade away. 

Another oil company representative also estimated production to be more than a decade 

away.

38 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline System is an 800-mile pipeline that runs from Prudhoe Bay 

on the North Slope of Alaska to the Port of Valdez in southern Alaska.

Mining
 

Page 22 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Mining District, which is located 180 miles southeast of the Red Dog 

Mine, but production would not begin for at least 6 years, and the method 

for transporting the copper ore has not been determined. In addition, an 

Alaska Native regional corporation is considering development of a 

coalmine on the North Slope and is currently assessing a location for a 

potential deepwater port to transport the coal. The effect of the planned 

mines on the levels of maritime traffic appears uncertain in the next 10 

years. Mineral deposits are in remote locations and would require the 

development of significant infrastructure, such as roads capable of 

carrying freight, rail, or a deepwater port to transport the ore. Mining 

companies, such as those in the Ambler Mining District, have considered 

using the DeLong Terminal to ship ore, but have not done so due to its 

shallow depth. While the port may have sufficient depth to ship Red Dog 

Mine’s zinc ore, a deepwater port would be needed for heavier copper 

ore. According to the representative, mining companies would be 

interested in using ports to export extracted minerals, but do not plan to 

develop port infrastructure on their own.

Federal and state government entities have taken some actions to 

support the existing Arctic maritime infrastructure and plan for future 

maritime infrastructure investments. Table 3 below describes the current 

status of existing maritime infrastructure to support the Arctic MTS. Some 

government actions help to address the factors that some industry 

representatives identified as limiting their current and expected activity in 

U.S. Arctic. For example, the USACE, in collaboration with the State of 

Alaska, has taken steps to study the development of an Arctic deepwater 

port, a factor identified by mining representatives as contributing to the 

industry’s limited activity. Given the level of interest in developing the 

Arctic, we reviewed efforts by the various government entities to plan and 

Government Entities 

Have Taken Some 

Actions to Support 

U.S. Arctic Maritime 

Infrastructure, Though 

Development 

Presents Unique 

Challenges

Federal and State 

Government Entities Have 

Taken Some Actions to 

Support the U.S. Arctic 

MTS
 

Page 23 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

develop maritime infrastructure such as ports; aids to navigation; polar 

icebreaking; mapping, charting, and weather information; and port 

connectors, such as rail and roads.

Table 3: Status of Existing U.S. Arctic Maritime Infrastructure, 2013 

Infrastructure components Description

Ports There are no U.S. Arctic deepwater ports. Most of the 

harbors and coastal ports north of the Aleutian Islands 

are shallow and primarily support barge service 

supplying fuel to coastal villages and are not sufficiently 

deep to support larger, commercial vessels such as 

container or tanker ships.

Aids to navigation Currently, there are 9 fixed aids to navigation north of the 

Bering Strait that mark the entrance to Kotzebue Sound 

and support vessels bound for the Red Dog Mine. There 

are no federally maintained aids along the north coast of 

Alaska, but there are 11 privately maintained aids near 

Prudhoe Bay.

Polar icebreaking The Coast Guard operates the nation’s two functioning 

icebreakers, which are used in the Arctic for emergency 

response, research assistance, and patrols. 

Mapping and charting, 

weather, water and sea ice 

information

Less than 1 percent of navigationally significant waters in 

the U.S. Arctic have been surveyed with modern 

technology.

Port connectors Generally, there are few roads and no rail in Alaska 

north of the Arctic Circle; consequently, port connectors 

are fairly limited. One key connector road runs from the 

DeLong port facility to the Red Dog Mine.

Source: GAO.

Currently there are studies under way to develop an Arctic deepwater port 

in northern Alaska. The USACE and the Alaska Department of 

Transportation and Public Facilities have reported on this issue and are 

currently conducting an additional study to identify potential port sites in 

the U.S. Arctic region.39

 

39 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public 

Facilities, Alaska Deep-Draft Arctic Port System Study (March 2013). The term “deepdraft” is a term to describe ports that can accommodate vessels such as large cargo 

ships. In this report, the study team defined “deep-draft” as a depth greater than 35 feet.

USCG also completed its report Feasibility of Establishing an Arctic Deep-draft Seaport

(February 2014).

In addition to conducting studies, the USACE 

also conducts dredging, for example at the Port of Nome, with a 22-foot 

Ports
 

Page 24 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

deep outer harbor and a 10-foot deep small boat harbor, which supports 

vessels that service commercial and community needs. The state of 

Alaska has also taken some actions in support of planning and 

developing port infrastructure in the U.S. Arctic. The Alaska Industrial 

Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), a corporate agency related 

to the state government, provides project financing for Alaska businesses. 

For example, it financed the construction of the approximately $260 

million DeLong Mountain Transportation System for the Red Dog Mine 

near Kotzebue. AIDEA, in conjunction with an Alaska Native Corporation, 

has also funded the second phase of a study to determine the feasibility 

of developing Cape Thompson, located on the North Slope, as a port for 

shipping extracted minerals and gas.

Officials we spoke with from state and local government suggested that a 

U.S. Arctic deepwater port is needed to support a potential increase in 

maritime activities in the Arctic. According to these government officials, 

an Arctic deepwater port could potentially serve as a trans-shipment hub 

for companies using Arctic routes or could host a permanent USCG 

presence in the Arctic, allowing the USCG to better meet its missions for 

search and rescue, oil spill response, and maritime law enforcement. 

While there was some agreement about the usefulness of a deepwater 

port to support USCG efforts, industry representatives we spoke with had 

varying views about such a port’s potential for commercial purposes. 

Shipping-industry representatives, for example, indicated that they would 

not use a U.S. Arctic deepwater port for trans-Arctic shipping because of 

high fuel costs or the fact that such a port would not be connected with 

existing port networks or any port connectors.

The USCG is conducting a Waterway Analysis and Management System 

assessment along the western and northern coasts of Alaska in order to 

understand the extent and type of aids to navigation needed; however, 

officials we spoke with indicated that there were no current plans to 

expand deployment of aids to navigation in the Arctic region. According to 

federal government sources, there are a number of challenges to such 

deployment in the Arctic. First, hydrographic surveying and mapping must 

be completed before the USCG can install aids to navigation in an area, 

and as noted in table 3, a large amount of the U.S. Arctic remains 

Aids to Navigation
 

Page 25 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

uncharted or mapped.40

The USCG is currently in the preliminary phase of a new polar-icebreaker 

acquisition project including development of a formal mission need 

statement, a concept of operations, and an operational requirements 

document.

Second, aids to navigation are particularly 

challenging to operate north of the Bering Strait due to the freeze-thaw 

cycle and likelihood of sustaining damage from floating sea ice.

41

Although multiple studies have pointed to a gap in the nation’s 

icebreaking capabilities, due to limited resources, the USCG balances 

icebreaking needs against a variety of considerations.

USCG budget requests for this pre-acquisition work were $8 

million in fiscal year 2013 and $2 million in fiscal year 2014. These sums 

are a fraction of USCG’s cost estimates, which range from $850 million to

$1 billion for one new icebreaker that USCG plans to put into service in 

the early 2020s.

42 The USCG 

operates the nation’s two functioning icebreakers, which are used in the 

Arctic for emergency response, research assistance, and patrols.43

 

40 Hydrographic surveying is the measure of water depths and detection of hazards to 

navigation such as rocks and other features that mariners should be aware of for safety. 

Nautical charts depict water depths.

In 

early 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard Cutter (USCGC) Healy escorted a 

Russian fuel tanker to Nome to provide the city with an unprecedented 

winter fuel delivery. The Russian tanker was the city’s only option after its 

final fall fuel shipment was cancelled due to a large storm in the Bering 

Sea. The USCG’s other icebreaker, the USCGC Polar Star was recently 

reactivated and conducted icebreaking sea trials in the U.S. Arctic during 

summer 2013 to make sure it was functioning properly after 3 years of 

extensive repairs. Due to the limited number of icebreakers, the USCG 

determines where it sends its icebreakers based on risk assessments.

41 Ice operations are a USCG statutory mission area.

42 ABS Consulting, U.S. Polar Icebreaker Recapitalization Report: A Comprehensive 

Analysis and Its Impacts on U.S. Coast Guard Activities, prepared for the USCG (October 

2011); USCG, High Latitude Study Mission Analysis Report (July 2010); and CMTS, U.S. 

Arctic Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action 2013.

43 The United States has two operational icebreakers; the heavy icebreaker U.S. Coast 

Guard Cutter (USCGC) Polar Star and the medium icebreaker USCGC Healy. The Polar 

Star operates in both the Arctic and Antarctic. The Healy is primarily dedicated to support 

scientific research in the Arctic. A third icebreaker, the USCGC Polar Sea has been 

inoperative since 2010.

Polar Icebreaking
 

Page 26 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

In response to increasing demand, NOAA has taken several steps to 

improve mapping, charting, and weather information for the U.S. Arctic. In 

February 2013, NOAA released its plan to create new nautical charts in 

parts of the U.S. Arctic.44

In addition to NOAA’s charting efforts, the state of Alaska is undertaking a 

charting and mapping initiative. The state’s Department of Natural 

Resources is overseeing a Statewide Digital Mapping Initiative, which is 

developing a digital base map of the state, including the U.S. Arctic. The 

state dedicated $3 million for the mapping initiative in the fiscal year 2014 

enacted budget.

In addition, NOAA is working in partnership with 

the Alaska Ocean Observing System to develop an Alaska Sea Ice Atlas, 

which would be a weekly web-based product providing site-specific and 

season-specific information on sea ice in Alaskan waters, including 

anticipated season lengths and navigation opening dates. According to 

NOAA, a prototype will be available in 2014.

According to NOAA officials, mapping and charting information for the 

U.S. Arctic has generally not been an issue until recently, since 

historically the Arctic has been ice-locked and closed to substantial 

maritime activity. Although a majority of industry representatives we 

spoke with did not identify a need for updated nautical charts, officials 

from NOAA stated that with increased accessibility to the Arctic, the 

agency has observed an increasing demand for updated charts among 

multiple users, including other federal agencies. Furthermore, officials 

noted similar increased demand for weather and sea ice information. 

Weather forecasts in the Arctic are not as accurate as those for the rest of 

the United States, due to fewer observations and forecasting models. To 

meet this demand, additional observations and forecasting models are 

necessary to improve weather and sea ice forecasts in the challenging 

Arctic environment.

Plans for developing and investing in U.S. Arctic port connectors are fairly 

limited. At the federal level, there are no specific plans to develop 

connecting roads or railways to existing ports or harbors, although the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides formula grants to 

states, including Alaska, for state-highway investment. However, the state 

 

44 NOAA officials stated that due to limited capabilities and limited access to much of the 

Arctic, at the current rate of work it would take a minimum of 50 years to chart 12 percent 

of the 325,000 square nautical miles considered navigationally significant.

Mapping, Charting, and 

Weather Information

Port Connectors
 

Page 27 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

of Alaska has created the Roads to Resources initiative to support the 

state’s priority to develop its natural resources by providing needed 

infrastructure to transport minerals. For fiscal year 2014, $8.5 million was 

appropriated and the Governor has proposed an additional $8.5 million in 

the fiscal year 2015 budget toward an all-year access road to the Ambler 

Mining District, according to Alaska officials. 

Geographic and construction challenges can affect the development of 

infrastructure in the Arctic, challenges that often result in more complex 

and costly design and construction. According to engineers we spoke 

with, although the engineering capabilities and technology exist, 

engineers in Alaska have to account for unique geographic challenges, 

which include the following.

• Permafrost: In northern Alaska, engineers have to address melting 

permafrost—the thawing of the soils underneath structures and roads. 

The melting of permafrost can be mitigated by using special designs, 

but at a high cost. For example, in Nome, as shown in figure 5, a 

hospital was built on a special foundation above the ground so that 

the building’s warmth would not melt the permafrost underneath.

• Coastal erosion: Coastal erosion is a result of stronger waves that are 

occurring at an accelerated rate with the diminishing sea ice. Erosion 

also increases at the shoreline as a result of permafrost melt and 

could contribute to higher waves around ports and affect pilings or 

other port infrastructure. These challenges can be mitigated by efforts 

such as strengthening the shoreline. See figure 5. As with roads and 

buildings, there are ways to mitigate the Arctic conditions, but they are 

costly.

Unique Geographic and 

Construction Challenges 

Can Increase U.S. Arctic 

Maritime Infrastructure 

Costs
 

Page 28 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 5: Hospital in Nome Built Above the Ground to Avoid Melting the Permafrost; Shore in Barrow Being Protected From 

Coastal Erosion

There are also substantial construction challenges that could affect Arctic 

maritime infrastructure development, including the following.

• Construction materials and equipment: According to USACE officials, 

construction materials and equipment are typically not readily 

available when and where they are needed and often must be 

shipped great distances. In most cases, materials and equipment 

must be transported by sea during a brief summer window with 

construction occurring in the same window or slightly beyond. For 

example, according to one engineer, gravel used for road construction 

and building foundations is often not available in the area of the 

construction. According to a state official, in many places there are no 

or limited supplies of local gravel, and the cost of transporting the 

gravel to the site could be greater than the cost of gravel itself.

• Skilled construction labor force: Villages may be able to provide some 

local labor, but skilled construction labor is usually in short supply in 

smaller villages and has to be brought in from other locations.45

 

45 The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development has an active training 

program for predicted construction projects. However according to USACE officials, the 

remote nature of many of Alaska’s projects often results in the local workforce not being 

able to receive the needed training in a timely manner.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

According to USACE officials, one unique construction labor issue is 

that the local labor force in Alaska may have to hunt or perform other 

subsistence activities during the warmer summer season to survive 

the winter. Bringing in outside workers drives up the cost of a project 

because, in the absence of existing housing facilities, temporary 

camps are needed.

• Short construction season: Alaska has an approximately 4-month 

construction season, along with extreme temperature ranges. While 

some types of construction can be done in the winter, such as 

excavating in permafrost and bogs, other types of construction 

cannot, such as erecting steel structures.

Largely due to the above factors, maritime infrastructure development in 

the Arctic is generally considered to be more expensive than similar 

construction in the continental United States. During our interviews with 

Arctic stakeholders with expertise in engineering and construction, we 

heard estimates of higher costs for Arctic maritime infrastructure 

components that ranged from 15 percent to 500 percent higher than for 

infrastructure constructed in the contiguous states. However, according to 

USACE officials, data do not exist to show specifically how much more 

expensive Arctic construction would be for different types of infrastructure 

projects. For an accurate civil construction cost estimate in Alaska, for 

example, the USACE would typically develop a customized estimate 

based on the infrastructure needed. This type of estimate depends on the 

specifics of the project’s scope, including project design, location, 

availability of qualified labor, time of construction, and other factors.

In July 2013, the federal interagency CMTS published the U.S. Arctic 

Marine Transportation System: Overview and Priorities for Action (Arctic 

Report), which identified and prioritized actions for developing Arctic 

maritime infrastructure and identified the lead agency for each of those 

The CMTS Prioritized 

U.S. Arctic MTS 

Infrastructure and 

Plans to Monitor 

Agencies’ Progress

The CMTS Prioritized 

Future Federal Arctic MTS 

Infrastructure 

Development
 

Page 30 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

actions, among other things.46 According to CMTS officials, it is the first 

systematic, interagency and publicly reviewed, sector-specific plan for 

federal U.S. Arctic maritime transportation policies, programs, and 

services. In addition to a summary of the myriad of federal Arctic reports, 

the Arctic Report includes an Arctic MTS Improvement Plan, which 

provides actions and time frames for federal agencies to invest in Arctic 

maritime infrastructure. Specifically the Arctic Report prioritized two broad 

categories of MTS infrastructure—information infrastructure, such as 

mapping and charting, and response services, such as search and 

rescue—to be addressed by agencies in the near term.47

• were identified as requirements by expert reports;

Both categories 

were selected as near-term priorities because, according to the Arctic 

Report, they:

• can be achieved with existing resources;

• were deemed to be regionally significant;

• are interdependent, building on each other to develop the Arctic MTS;

• can immediately increase safety for the mariner; and

• would help establish a foundation for sustainable federal Arctic 

support and safe operations.

Within the information infrastructure and response services categories, 

the Arctic Report recommended over 70 near-term actions to be 

addressed by 2015 by select member agencies: USCG, Department of 

Defense (jointly with USCG), and NOAA. According to the CMTS, the 

remaining three categories of MTS infrastructure development priorities 

 

46 The Arctic Report made three primary recommendations: rely on the CMTS as a 

coordinator for the U.S. Arctic MTS, ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of 

the Sea, and address MTS priority areas it identified for near term action. The last 

recommendation is outlined in the report through a list of actions that can be taken by 

member agencies and is the focus of the discussion in this report section.

47 The Arctic Report defines “near term” as having deliverable products between 2013 and 

2015, though it is expected that any work on the products would continue past 2015. 
 

Page 31 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

identified in the Arctic Report require longer lead times and more 

investment to be adequately addressed.48

Development of the recommended infrastructure priorities was an 

interagency effort from nine CMTS member agencies, including USCG, 

NOAA, USACE, and BOEM. Officials from the key federal agencies within 

the scope of this report indicated that they had suggested actions based 

on their current program elements. For example, BOEM included 

currently funded environmental program studies, such as ice engineering 

studies, as near-term actions in the information infrastructure MTS 

category.

According to CMTS officials, they are currently developing formalized 

plans to regularly monitor the extent to which agencies are addressing the 

Arctic Report’s recommended actions. In addition, officials plan to monitor 

the extent to which recommended actions are being implemented 

consistent with the National Strategy for the Arctic Region. We have 

previously found that developing mechanisms to monitor the results of 

collaborative efforts is a key practice that can help to enhance and 

 

48 The three remaining categories of MTS infrastructure (referred to as “components” in 

the Arctic Report) are navigable waterways, physical infrastructure, and vessels. Lead 

agencies for MTS elements from these categories include USACE, BOEM, NOAA, 

MARAD, BSEE, and USCG. In total, the five categories of MTS infrastructure are 

subcategorized into 16 elements of the MTS: places of refuge for ships, areas of 

heightened ecological significance, ports and associated facilities, geospatial 

infrastructure, hydrographic surveys and nautical charts, shoreline mapping, aids to 

navigation, communications, marine weather and sea ice forecasts, oceanographic and 

real-time navigation information, automatic identification system, icebreaking, 

environmental response management, search and rescue/emergency response, design 

standards for polar operations, and crew standards/training. These elements differ from 

the components of Arctic MTS reviewed in this report as we distinguished between actual 

infrastructure components and the services that use this infrastructure. For example, in 

this report search and rescue as well as emergency response are considered to be 

services that rely on maritime infrastructure components, such as ports or vessels. 

CMTS Plans to Monitor 

Agencies’ Progress 

Addressing 

Recommended Actions
 

Page 32 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

sustain collaboration among federal agencies.49 Furthermore, monitoring 

is particularly important where, as here, the CMTS is not vested with the 

authority to require agencies to implement the identified actions or 

activities.50

Implementation of the recommended actions identified in the Arctic 

Report is at the discretion of each federal agency and according to CMTS 

officials, no additional funding or resources were provided to address the 

priorities. Recommended actions will depend on, among other things,

individual agency resources and available appropriations. For example, 

USACE officials reported that although the actions included in the Arctic 

Report are largely consistent with those identified in their planning 

processes, the agency would only budget for those that reflect existing 

USACE priorities and projects under consideration, such as the Arctic 

deep-draft port study. The Arctic Report also identifies several priorities 

without including a specific time frame for agency action; these priorities 

are noted as “recommended but not resourced,” meaning agencies may 

not have planned or budgeted for them. Therefore, CMTS and its member 

agencies will only know the status of all recommended actions if they are 

actively monitored and reported on.

While regular monitoring does not provide resources to 

address the MTS needs of the Arctic, it can provide an efficient way to 

keep all stakeholders apprised of potential changes and help them to be 

more responsive to any adjustments to priorities or recommended actions 

in the Arctic Report.

CMTS officials also noted that the Arctic Report is a “living document” that 

should be updated as needed to reflect agencies’ progress addressing 

recommended actions and to incorporate information from other Arctic 

 

49 GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

We identified eight key practices to enhance and sustain collaborative efforts, which 

include defining and articulating a common outcome; establishing mutually reinforcing or 

joint strategies to achieve the outcome; identifying and addressing needs by leveraging 

resources; agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities; establishing compatible 

policies, procedures, and other means to operate across agency boundaries; developing 

mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results on collaborative efforts; 

reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts; and reinforcing individual 

accountability for collaborative efforts.

50 The Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region directs the DOT 

to complete a 10-year projection of maritime activities in the Arctic region, develop a 10-

year infrastructure prioritization framework, and monitor agency progress in bi-annual 

interagency meetings. Member agencies of CMTS were listed as supporting agencies.
 

Page 33 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

planning documents currently in development. There are a number of 

ongoing planning efforts and critical planning documents in development 

that could affect identified Arctic priorities and the planning and 

development of U.S. Arctic maritime infrastructure.51

Since CMTS is in the early stages of developing a process for agency 

monitoring, officials may want to consider identifying the type of 

information to be monitored and the timing and frequency of the 

monitoring. For example, tracking such details as to why an agency may 

not be addressing a recommended action or why an agency may be 

experiencing delays or any changes in an agencies’ commitment to 

addressing a recommended action. The reason for a delay or not 

addressing a recommended action could be particularly important given 

that some recommended actions being addressed by agencies may affect 

other agencies’ recommended actions. Furthermore, since there are over 

70 recommended agency actions scheduled to be addressed in the next 

2 years, the CMTS may want to consider more frequent monitoring of 

agencies’ progress in order to keep the Arctic Report effectively updated 

in the near term. According to CMTS officials, they will monitor and report 

on progress made to improve the Arctic MTS infrastructure.

For example, an 

Alaska legislative commission is currently developing a document that will 

outline the State of Alaska’s overarching Arctic priorities. That document 

could lead to changes to the Arctic Report priorities or recommended 

actions, and consequently, federal agencies’ efforts to address those 

actions.

Economic opportunities in the U.S. Arctic are considered to be key drivers 

for the development of Arctic maritime transportation infrastructure. 

Although we found commercial industries currently have limited activity in 

the U.S. Arctic and similarly limited plans for activity over the next 10 

years, federal agencies are taking steps to plan and develop maritime 

infrastructure that could help to address some of the underlying factors 

that contribute to limited development. For example, plans are moving 

forward to study potential sites for a U.S. Arctic deepwater port—

infrastructure that some have cited as desirable for both potential 

commercial activity and to enhance maritime safety.

 

51 According to CMTS officials, the Arctic Report recommendations have already informed 

the creation of broader federal government-wide Arctic policy documents that go beyond 

maritime infrastructure issues. 

Concluding 

Observations
 

Page 34 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

CMTS, the federal interagency coordinating committee tasked with 

addressing various Arctic maritime infrastructure issues, includes member 

agencies with differing missions and objectives. The identification, 

prioritization and vetting of Arctic maritime infrastructure plans and near 

term actions for federal agencies were important steps to addressing 

Arctic maritime infrastructure needs. Given the level of uncertainty around 

the development of the Arctic and the challenges and high costs to 

developing Arctic maritime infrastructure, it is important that federal 

agencies with responsibility for infrastructure components incorporate 

Arctic maritime infrastructure priorities and identified actions into their 

agency’s overall planning and investment decisions. Furthermore, since 

implementing recommended actions is at the discretion of the agencies 

and the Arctic Report is considered a “living document” with potentially 

changing priorities and actions, monitoring agencies’ progress in 

addressing recommended actions is an important step in planning, 

developing, and investing in Arctic maritime infrastructure. Effective 

monitoring will help ensure that CMTS member agencies continue to 

address Arctic maritime infrastructure as a coordinated effort with a 

shared understanding of current priorities and actions needed.

We provided a draft of our report to USACE, USCG, NOAA, DOT, and 

DOI for their review and comment. USCG, NOAA, DOT, and DOI 

provided written technical comments, which we incorporated into the 

report as appropriate. USACE did not have any comments on this report. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of Defense, 

the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of Commerce, the 

Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of the Interior, appropriate 

congressional committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

Agency Comments
 

Page 35 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix IV.

Lorelei St. James

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

The objectives of this report are to (1) identify what is known about the 

extent of commercial maritime activity in the U.S. Arctic and anticipated 

activity in the next 10 years; (2) identify actions government entities have 

taken in support of planning and developing U.S. Arctic maritime 

infrastructure and unique challenges that may exist; and (3) describe 

federal interagency efforts that have been taken to identify and prioritize 

Arctic maritime infrastructure investments.

For this report we focused on maritime infrastructure on the waters and 

land along the western and northern coasts of Alaska, in particular areas 

north of the Bering Strait because of the diminishing seasonal sea ice in 

these areas. Federal government agencies use multiple definitions for the 

Arctic, as there is no singular definition. We used the term Arctic to mean 

areas above the Arctic Circle and the term U.S. Arctic to discuss those 

areas that are U.S. waters and land, as defined by the Arctic Research 

and Policy Act of 1984, which includes “all United States and foreign 

territory north of the Arctic Circle and all United States territory north and 

west of the boundary formed by the Porcupine, Kuskokwim, and Yukon 

Rivers in Alaska; all contiguous seas, including the Arctic Ocean and the 

Beaufort, Bering, and Chukchi Seas; and the Aleutian chain.” We focused 

on the commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining 

industries. The maritime infrastructure included in our review is the 

marine transportation system (ports, navigable waterways, and port 

connectors, such as roads and railways), aids to navigation (e.g., buoys 

and beacons), mapping and charting, marine weather and sea ice 

forecasts, and polar icebreakers.

To obtain information on all of our objectives we reviewed program 

documentation and written reports and interviewed knowledgeable 

officials from selected federal entities, state of Alaska entities, local 

governments, industry associations, companies, Alaska Native 

organizations, Alaska Native corporations, academic and research 

institutions, engineers, financial and insurance services, and 

environmental groups as shown in table 4.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Table 4: Organizations Selected for Interviews

Federal Government Department of Transportation 

Committee on the Marine Transportation System

United States Coast Guard

Department of Defense

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Department of the Interior

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic 

Development

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

Department of Military and Veteran’s Affairs

Department of Natural Resources

Department of Fish and Game

Department of Environmental Conservation

Alaska Energy Authority

Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority

Alaska Arctic Policy Commission

Office of the Lieutenant Governor

Local Government City of Barrow

North Slope Borough

City of Nome

Port of Nome

Northwest Arctic Borough

Port of Anchorage

Oil and Gas Industry Shell

Statoil USA

ConocoPhillips

Alaska Oil and Gas Association

American Petroleum Institute

Alaska Clean Seas

Commercial Shipping Bowhead Transport Company

Crowley Maritime Corporation

Maersk Lines, Limited

Nordic Bulk Carriers

Hapag-Lloyd
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Tschudi Group

Marine Exchange of Alaska

World Shipping Council

Intertanko

Commercial Fishing Marine Conservation Alliance

United Fishermen of Alaska

Mining Alaska Miners Association

Baffinland Iron Mines

Cruise Cruise Lines International Association

Cruise Line Agencies of Alaska

Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators

Alaska Native Organizations Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission

Eskimo Walrus Commission

Kawerak, Inc. 

Alaska Native Corporations Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

Bering Straits Native Corporation

NANA Regional Corporation 

Sitnasuak Village Native Corporation

Ukpeagvik Iñupiat Corporation

Academics and Research 

Institutions

Institute of the North

State University of New York – Maritime College 

University of Alaska – Anchorage, School of 

Engineering

University of Alaska – Fairbanks 

University of Washington Polar Science Center 

Other Arctic Stakeholders American Society of Civil Engineers

International Union of Marine Insurance

Northern Alaska Environmental Center 

PEW Charitable Trust, U.S. Arctic Program 

Platinum Capital Advisors

Source: GAO.

We selected the stakeholders based on relevant published literature, our 

previous work, stakeholders’ recognition and affiliation with private 

industry, and recommendations from the stakeholders interviewed. The 

results of these interviews are not generalizable, but do provide insights 

regarding current and planned maritime activities in the U.S. Arctic.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

To describe what is known about commercial activity in the U.S. Arctic, 

we interviewed companies and industry trade associations from the 

commercial-shipping, cruise, commercial-fishing, oil, and mining 

industries. We selected these industries based on background research 

from key Arctic infrastructure reports from the Congressional Research 

Service and the Committee on the Marine Transportation System. 

Information we collected included specific industry practices, such as the 

use of Arctic routes and ports, and the extent to which industries plan to 

utilize Arctic routes and increase their activity over the next 10 years 

particularly north of the Bering Strait.

To describe actions federal, state, and local government entities have 

taken in support of the U.S. Arctic marine transportation system, we 

interviewed and collected documentation from 7 federal, 10 state, and 6 

local entities to identify infrastructure within the scope of responsibility for 

each entity. We also identified specific efforts each entity has undertaken 

related to mapping, ports, port connectors (e.g., roads and rail), weather, 

polar icebreakers, and aids to navigation. To describe unique challenges 

that may exist, we conducted a site visit to Alaska and interviewed 

stakeholders. We conducted site visits to Nome, Barrow, and Anchorage, 

Alaska, from July 21, 2013, to July 27, 2013. We chose these sites by 

applying the following criteria: geographic location in the state, number of 

interviews to be conducted, infrastructure activity, cultural considerations, 

and recommendations from stakeholders. During the site visits, we spoke 

with federal, state, local, Alaska Native, and private sector stakeholders; 

toured the ports of Nome and Anchorage; and viewed barge-landing 

areas in Barrow. We also documented existing infrastructure, the physical 

environment, and challenges to developing infrastructure in each location. 

In addition to the site visits, we spoke with engineers and financial and 

insurance representatives. The information we gathered from these 

interviews include relative costs of constructing infrastructure in the Arctic 

and considerations for cost calculation.

To describe federal interagency efforts that have been taken to identify 

and prioritize Arctic maritime infrastructure investments, we reviewed a 

key federal government report and prior GAO reports on several topics 

including our body of work on Arctic issues and interagency 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

collaboration.1

We conducted this performance audit from February 2013 through March 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

In addition, we interviewed knowledgeable officials from 

CMTS, BOEM and BSEE, the USACE, NOAA, and the USCG to 

understand the status of the near-term actions identified in the CMTS 

Arctic Report and how, if at all, those actions fit within each agency’s 

strategic plans.

 

1 U.S. Committee on the Marine Transportation System, U.S. Arctic Marine Transportation 

System: Overview and Priorities for Action (Washington, D.C.: 2013); GAO, Coast Guard: 

Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but More Communication about 

Agency Planning Efforts Would Be Beneficial, GAO-10-870 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 

2010); GAO, Arctic Capabilities: DOD Addressed Many Specified Reporting Elements in 

Its 2011 Arctic Report but Should Take Steps to Meet Near- and Long-term Needs, 

GAO-12-180 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2012); and GAO, Managing for Results: Key 

Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).
Appendix II: Diminishing Arctic Seasonal Sea 

Ice 

Page 41 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Scientific research and projections vary, but there is consensus that Arctic 

sea ice is diminishing and will continue to do so through the 21st century. 

According to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center, the September 

ice extent in the Arctic has seen a downward trend with a 13.7 percent 

decrease per decade since 1979.1

 

1 The ice extent includes those areas that have over 15 percent of the area covered with 

ice.

The center also reported that the 2013 

Arctic sea-ice extent decreased to 2.0 million square miles—the sixth 

lowest in the satellite record. See figure 6. NOAA officials stated that sea 

ice volume (area times thickness) is now estimated at 25 percent of its 

1980 amount. Predictions by researchers of when there will be an icediminished Arctic Ocean in the summer range from sometime in the next 

10 years to the year 2100, with most estimates in the range of 20 to 40 

years.

Appendix II: Diminishing Arctic Seasonal Sea 

Ice 
Appendix II: Diminishing Arctic Seasonal Sea 

Ice 

Page 42 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Figure 6: September 2012 and September 2013 Ice Extent Compared with the 1981 to 2010 Median September Ice Extent
Appendix III: Arctic Maritime Infrastructure 

Roles of Federal and Other Stakeholders 

Page 43 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

A wide variety of federal, state, local, and other stakeholders play a role in 

planning, developing, and managing Arctic maritime infrastructure. Below 

are some key federal agencies with Arctic maritime infrastructure 

responsibilities:

• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead federal agency 

responsible for maintaining and improving navigable waterways in the 

United States (e.g., to provide dredging of port harbors). Among 

USACE’s responsibilities, the USACE assists federal, state, local, and 

native entities with planning, engineering, and construction of projects. 

USACE is the key federal agency in constructing, operating and 

maintaining harbors, shipping channels, and inland waterways, as 

well as locks, dams, and other navigation structures such as jetties.

• The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is a multi-mission, maritime military 

service within the Department of Homeland Security that has 

responsibilities including maritime safety, security, environmental 

protection, and national defense, among other missions. Ice 

operations and aids to navigation are two of its 11 statutory mission 

areas. USCG plays a significant role in search and rescue efforts, 

emergency response, and maritime law enforcement. 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration provides weather 

and sea ice forecasts, nautical charts, and oceanographic information 

for marine transportation, accurate-positioning infrastructure, real-time 

and forecast models for navigation and oil-spill response, and satellite 

search and rescue support services for the U.S. Exclusive Economic 

Zone, which includes areas in the U.S. Arctic.

• Department of Transportation and its respective federal 

administrations—Federal Highway Administration and Federal 

Railroad Administration—provide some support for infrastructure that 

is used as connectors to ports. The Maritime Administration provides 

technical assistance to port authorities for project planning, design, 

and construction.

There is also a variety of non-federal stakeholders involved with Arctic 

maritime infrastructure including international entities, the State of Alaska, 

local governments, Alaska Native organizations, Alaska Native 

corporations, and other non-profits. Among them are:

• International Entities: The United States participates in the Arctic 

Council, a high level intergovernmental forum established in 1996 to 

promote cooperation, coordination, and interaction among Arctic 

states, with the involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and 

other Arctic inhabitants on common Arctic issues, particularly issues 

Appendix III: Arctic Maritime Infrastructure 

Roles of Federal and Other Stakeholders

Key Federal Agencies
Appendix III: Arctic Maritime Infrastructure 

Roles of Federal and Other Stakeholders 

Page 44 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

of sustainable development and environmental protection in the 

Arctic. 

• State of Alaska Government: Multiple entities within state government 

have a role in the development of Arctic maritime infrastructure or the 

landside transportation connectors. Related state roles include search 

and rescue, infrastructure finance and construction, and regulating the 

use of Arctic waters within Alaska’s jurisdiction. In addition, the State 

Legislature formed the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission in 2012 to 

create an actionable Arctic policy for Alaska. The Commission 

released a Preliminary Report for public comment in January 2014, 

with a final report due to the Alaska Legislature in January 2015.

• Local Government: Local government includes both cities and 

boroughs. A borough functions somewhat similarly to a county in 

other states. For example, Alaska’s North Slope Borough 

encompasses 89,000 square miles of Arctic territory in northern 

Alaska, and includes the city of Barrow and others.1

• Alaska Native Organizations: Alaska Native communities have

inhabited the Arctic region for thousands of years and have cultures 

that are particularly sensitive to changes in the environment due to 

subsistence lifestyles revolving around marine ecosystems. There are 

currently 225 federally recognized tribal governments in Alaska, which 

may coexist with a city government. Groups such as the Alaska 

Eskimo Whaling Commission and the Eskimo Walrus Commission 

have also formed to represent and protect Alaska Natives’ lifestyles 

and heritage.

• Alaska Native Corporations: Regional and village Alaska native 

corporations are private entities that have business interests and own 

land that could affect the development of maritime infrastructure.

• Non-profit: The Marine Exchange of Alaska, a not-for-profit entity that 

works with USCG and the State of Alaska, among others, collects 

vessel traffic data through the Bering Strait. Relying on Automatic 

Identification System (AIS) technology,2

 

1 Most of the state of Alaska is unincorporated. Two-thirds of the state is not incorporated 

at the borough level and is part of what is referred to as the “Unorganized Borough.” 

the Marine Exchange tracks 

and reports on vessel traffic around the state of Alaska. While AIS 

data relies on self-reported information—such as the description of 

the type of vessel, type of cargo, or the destination of the vessel—it 

2 AIS technology includes transponders used on ships that electronically exchanges data 

every 2 to 4 seconds with other ships and land-based receivers for identifying and locating 

vessels. 
Appendix III: Arctic Maritime Infrastructure 

Roles of Federal and Other Stakeholders 

Page 45 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

does provide an indication of the overall steady trend of Arctic 

maritime activity.3

 

3 Data transmitted by ships is dependent on the good will of the vessels’ owners and 

operators, as vessel operators can turn off AIS or it may not accurately reflect the type of 

vessel operating because the vessel’s operator, either intentionally or not, improperly 

programmed the device. Smaller vessels may not be tracked by AIS unless they carry and 

operate AIS, which is not a requirement.
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 46 GAO-14-299 Maritime Infrastructure

Lorelei St. James, (202) 512-2834 or stjamesl@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sharon Silas (Assistant Director); 

Brian Chung; Swati Deo; Geoff Hamilton; Delwen Jones; Les Locke; Josh 

Ormond; and Elizabeth Wood made key contributions to this report. 

Sarah Kaczmarek, Melanie Papasian, Theresa Perkins, and Christopher 

Stone made key contributions to the video in this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(544190)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.